|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 12, 2010 3:13:21 GMT -6
I've always had misgivings about Ed Schultz, as he seems to be a populist at some times, but an illogical and inconsistent partisan hack at others.
He's finally converted to a complete, unabashed Obama-philic partisan hack, with his unhinged support for anything Obama wants, regardless of the reason, coupled with his unhinged attacks on true populists like Dennis Kucinich--who's maintained his opposition to the latest Health Insurance Industry Welfare bill that's masquerading as health care "reform."
Hooray for Kucinich.
And hooray for Maxine Waters, for not knuckling under to Shultz's partisan hackery, when Schultz insisted that Democrats just must give the Obamamessiah a victory on health care, regardless of the fact that it's a step backwards.
Screw you, Ed Schultz. You've got no core principles. You're nothing but a half-witted partisan hack--blindly supporting the Obamamessiah on any issue, regardless of how counterproductive and anti-populist it is.
Actually, Ed, you're just like the idiotologically-blinded supporters of Bush.
You've just picked a different idiot to blindly support.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 12, 2010 11:37:18 GMT -6
Not surprising.
Many leading Donkeycrats and progressives have done this since Obie announced his presidential run that it seems to be standard operating procedure among them.
Even so-called anti-corporate progressives like Sirota and Taibbi sucked up to Obama and became his apologist and attack dog. People who should know better because they knew his real record
To me it shows that we should never really trust those political analyst and party reformer types because in the end they are just another version of the kool-aid drinking party hack. Their loyalties are to the party not to the people and not certainly to the truth.
They'd make perfect communists or fascists.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Mar 12, 2010 13:47:53 GMT -6
I still like ed schultz, but I'll admit there are a few things he's down right ignorant on (especially economics).
Ultimately, an army of unpure soldiers will prevail over the pure ones. None of the progressive names in mainstream media are as pure as we would like, just about none of them have even taken on the kleptocratic aspects of the mandate.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Mar 15, 2010 9:30:22 GMT -6
If Republicans were any better i'd gloat, but they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2010 1:17:20 GMT -6
Tonight Schultz reaffirmed my assertion that's he's a worthless turd. He praised Kucinich's caving-in on his vote on health care. In reality, Kucinich's cave-in was despicable--though not surprising given the overwhelming and cowardly bullying by Obama and his Corporate media hacks on CNBC--Schultz, Maddow, and Keith Olbermann's replacement, Lawrence O'Donnell. This is disgusting Obamaphilia at its worst. There's NOTHING in this bill of substance that helps Americans with health care. Not a thing. This will INCREASE the price of health care by forcibly increasing the demand for health care by Government decree. Despite Schultz and Democrats' brain-damaged Obamaphiliacs support of this health care insurers' bailout bill, this bill needs to be defeated. The idea that "something is better than nothing" is B.S. This is worse than nothing. This is a huge step BACKWARDS. In fact, one could make the argument that health insurers raised their premiums to deliberately cause the passage of this bill, which would mandate that 30 million more Americans must buy health insurance, or be prosecuted. This is all about giving the Obamamessiah a victory, not about "helping" Americans. It's about helping Obamaphiliacs and the health insurance racket. I'll admit there are a few things he's down right ignorant on (especially economics). Agreed. I'd go 1 step further, and say he's as dumb as bag of hammers when it comes to economics. Ultimately, an army of unpure soldiers will prevail over the pure ones. None of the progressive names... just about none of them have even taken on the kleptocratic aspects of the mandate. Exactly. The mandate is a gift to health insurance companies, and grand theft of American citizens, who'll be forced to hand over their money to health insurance companies by the Obamatocracy's decree. And if I ever said anything positive about Rachel Maddow, I want to take it back right now. Her unhinged attacks on Bart Stupak are motivated by nothing other than her worship of the Obamamessiah and his "no-health-insurance-company-left-behind" scam that masquerades as health care "reform."
|
|
|
Post by agito on Mar 18, 2010 16:45:28 GMT -6
I would think that her attacls on stupak are motivated by abortion issues, something that generally invokes more passion than either healthcare or any individual politician
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 18, 2010 17:39:05 GMT -6
I would think that her attacls on stupak are motivated by abortion issues, something that generally invokes more passion than either healthcare or any individual politician I don't. I've never heard Maddow make this big a deal out of abortion. The timing is too convenient here. It's coming exactly when the Obamamessiah's insurers' welfare bill is up for a vote. (For the record, I don't agree with Stupak's anti-choice position.) The triple-teaming by Maddow, Schultz, and O'Donnell has come right at a time when an Corporatocratic, anti-progressive Health Care Bill is about to be shoved down Americans' throats. Though I might agree with their stated reasons for going after Stupak, I don't agree with their true underlying reason--which simply to push to "give the President the victory he deserves" (to quote Ed Schultz).
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Mar 18, 2010 18:50:45 GMT -6
Me neither, but.... Coalitions are a balancing act. Most economic populists are pro-life. I have always felt pro choice was a better fit with Republican ideology. Folks seem to forget that the FDR coalition was economically liberal and socially agnostic leaning conservative.
Now, if Dems were not so frickiin stupid they could have their public option. Stupak only became an issue when the public option died. If they called the PO the Life and Healthcare preservation Act they'd put the R's in a very uncomfortable position.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 18, 2010 20:03:10 GMT -6
Most economic populists are pro-life. I have always felt pro choice was a better fit with Republican ideology. Folks seem to forget that the FDR coalition was economically liberal and socially agnostic leaning conservative.
Yep, economic populists tend to be blue collar and middle-class, whereas liberals tend to be upper middle-class to independently wealthy(this also explains why so very few of them give a rats ass about economic issues - they live in totally different worlds).
Sadly it also explains the tremendous hatred that liberals have for these Americans as well. Reading liberal comments about blue collar and middle-class Americans is like reading what the Nazis said about Jews.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Mar 18, 2010 23:07:20 GMT -6
where do you read these comments? I see one or 2 posters on Dkos that I follow semi-regularly because they talk about economic issues who might fit this description, but for the most part liberals tie themselves to big labor.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 19, 2010 2:36:38 GMT -6
where do you read these comments? I see one or 2 posters on Dkos that I follow semi-regularly because they talk about economic issues who might fit this description, but for the most part liberals tie themselves to big labor. Those comments first started with the Obamamessiah himself in the primaries, when he belittled West Virginians for their concern about immigrants stealing their jobs and their jobs being outsourced to foreign countries. And that same attitude was reflected in follow-up comments by David Axelrod--implying that Obama didn't really need the white blue collar vote to win anyway (all Obama really needed was the campaign contributions from rich liberals, banks, and the health care insurance racket). I hear surprisingly little on pro-populist economic issues from Rachel Maddow or Markos Malitsos (sp?) of Daily Kos. What I do hear is a lot of discussion on social issues (abortion & gay rights), and pro-illegal immigration couched as a "racial" issue. I hear surprisingly little about outsourcing/globalization, bank bailouts, unemployment, Corporate welfare, anti-trust, and--last, but not least--what a sell-out to Corporate interests the current health care pseudo-reform bill is. Maddow, Shultz, and Malitsos are doing a pukish & disgusting job of demonizing Democrats who oppose the Obamamessiah's phony health care reform bill. The 3 of them harassed Dennis Kucinich (including Malitsos' cowardly threat to mount a primary challenge against Kucinch--a classic "rich liberal" maneuver), while propagandizing Kucinich's constituents into pushing Kucinich to cave in and vote for something he knows is bad. I do think rich liberals look down on blue collar and middle class Americans as though they're beneath them, and that their views are somehow less important. They assume that we all just know by now, that it's far more important to save 1 banker than it is to save 1 factory worker.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Mar 21, 2010 1:05:41 GMT -6
where do you read these comments? I see one or 2 posters on Dkos that I follow semi-regularly because they talk about economic issues who might fit this description, but for the most part liberals tie themselves to big labor.
Go back prior to the '06 victories and check right after the '04 loss to junior. Markos's site along with Gilliard's was full of venom towards the average American. Whom liberals saw as nothing but a bunch of in-bred meth heads because they didn't vote Democratic. It was worse for those in the fly over states which were viewed as some sort of Mad Max territory where hordes of bandits roamed the roads.
They've toned it down since then but Markos rarely shows any interest in trade or economic issues impacting the average American and never has as a matter of fact. You won't read discussions about "free"trade, off-shoring, in-sourcing or the problems created by illegal immigration(bring it up and you'll get labeled a xenophobe and racist then be banned).
But its just not Markos's site that's like this, it's almost every mainstream liberal site out there as well. There is little interest in economic issues or economic populism among liberals in general. Take Bob Oak who is a long time Dkos poster and runs his own economic populist site - he gets almost no traffic compared to all the social issues oriented liberal sites like Dkos or FireDoglake.
Lastly the fact Markos bullied Dennis Kucinich, whom BTW is about the closet thing Democrats have to a honest pol and populist over his opposition to HCR tells me what a pack whores and frauds Markos and crew are. But what the heck, it made him a multi-millionaire and his phone # is on Pelosi's rolodex.
So much for crashing the gates.
|
|